The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-28-2018 Item 3 - Meyer Purrington, Teresa From:Eric Meyer <frenchbicycles@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, To:Advisory Bodies Subject:PC communication Item 3 Feb 27 meeting. RE zoning code update Dear Planning Commission Questions to consider RE PC 2-27-18 item #3: Zoning regulations update 1) RE: 17.52.020 Why limit the PD overlay zone applicability to one acre or more? In order to foster a more SLO sense of place it would seem that we would want to encourage smaller developments rather than large… more along the lines of 2-4 standard city r2-r4 lots… aka 14,000 to 28,000 square feet total… rather than the 7 standard city lot accumulation required to meet the 1 acre minimum. Would lowering this requirement to a smaller site area minimum encourage better, smaller, and more diverse infill projects? 2) RE 17-58 Historic Preservation Overlay Zones: Should we include the already proposed updated historic zones into this zoning update? If not now… then when? What do we need from staff and the Cultural Heritage Commission to get this accomplished. They (the CHC) have had an itemized list of the areas (I have seen a parcel by parcel list) suggested for addition to the Historic Preservation overlay zones for a decade or so… what is preventing us from adding these other historic zones? The original historic zones were created several decades ago (the 80's??)… 40 years has passed since then. Shouldn't we be considering the additional historic zones outlined by the CHC? Wouldn't now be the time to get all of this together in a single zoning code update push? 3) 17.XX.020 C5 Accessory Dwelling units: Performance standards and Compatibility: Architectural Compatibility In the old town… there are many historic secondary structures that are not necessarily "compatible" with their primary structure. Picture the old galvanized sheds behind many of our older wood lap sided homes downtown. Are these compatible? Would this historically accurate combination be considered "matching" by planning staff today? Creating an architecturally "compatible" secondary structure basically means creating a "mini me" of the main structure. Is this really what we want? This is what Seaside Florida does… and many other "developments". But creating a "mini me" of the main home makes the town feel like Disneyland. Is Celebration Florida what we want to look like? No. We should carefully consider what we mean when we say "architecturally compatible"… or "match" and think about what that means to our neighborhoods. I understand that we don't want clashing structures that jut out from the norm of the neighborhood… but we do want to allow a varying degree of styles and materials choices. So this chapter needs a bit of editing IMHO. 1 I would suggest we say "Compatible with the neighborhood" instead of "compatible with the primary residence" ? We don't want to accidentally create a "matchy sameness" when we could instead encourage carefully considered differences. It truly isn't important that the second unit matches the house… it is only important that it match the neighborhood. Think of the old carriage house… behind a newer plaster 60's house in a vintage 1905 bungalow neighborhood. Should we really be matching the house… or should we match the neighborhood? Our neighborhoods include a variety of typologies… this mix is a part of our vernacular. We don't want to accidentally create boredom. We just want to prevent eyesores… that don't feel like the neighborhoods they are in. I believe it is more important to match the neighborhood… than it is to match the individual primary dwelling. This will result in a more interesting assortment of buildings… without accidentally creating (allowing) boring designs… or creating ridiculous designs. 4) CA SB 827 Have the potential effects of CA SB 827 been considered? What does SB 827 mean for San Luis Obispo's zoning code? Is there anything that our zoning code needs to look at in advance of its adoption (if it passes)? This is primarily a topic for discussion I expect. I don't have any ideas here. Just wanted to bring the subject up so it gets discussed by you all! 5) Lastly… Bungalow Court Overlay Zones! I have separately mailed your staff on this months ago already… so they should have materials to share on this… I was told by Michael Codron that he was going to explore this with the community (and thus you I hope) We need to encourage a low Bungalow Court typology. Currently it is ok to build condos up to 35 feet high in the multi family zones…(apartment over garage). But this housing type really changes a standard SLO multi family neighborhood when it is inserted. We can also achieve density at a lower height with small lot subdivision individually owned Bungalows but in order to get it without height we have to unbundle the parking from the small lot subdivisions.. so long as these small lots are limited to 1.5 story small homes… say 800 sq ft max… on lots of say 1500 sq ft. with standard setbacks from one another... IF a neighborhood is asked whether they would rather have a three story building next door (two story condo over a garage) … or to have more cars parked on the street… the neighborhood might choose to have a more crowded street in order to NOT get towering neighbors that take away the existing backyard and sideyard privacy. But neighborhoods don't have that option at the moment… because small lot subdivisions where the houses are SHORT don't work… because the lots need to be too big (and thus unaffordable) when we force cars to park on them. If we unbundle the cars from small house discussion.. then the houses can get shorter and less obtrusive to the neighborhood… because they don't need to park the cars under the house. Bungalow courts already have proven to be great solutions to housing. Non conforming 100 year old bungalow courts already exist at the corner of Pismo and Santa Rosa… as well as Toro at Walnut… and they match the older neighborhoods a lot better than the typical 3 story condo development currently allowed. Consider creating a specialty bungalow court overlay for R2,3,4 zones… unbundle it from parking requirements… max 800 sq ft 1.5 story (lofted inside rafters) homes on 1500 sq ft minimum lots… unbundled parking. Standard setbacks. Create a form based code specific to this overlay in a classic bungalow style pattern… historic spanish, deco, or california bungalow. 2 Thanks for your consideration! Eric Meyer frenchbicycles@gmail.com 3